Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	7 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 2 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	2 hours
Metrication in the United Kingdom	Closed	Friendliness12345 (t)	6 days, 21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 days,
Desi	Closed	Factfinderrr (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Lydham Hall	New	Olga Sydney (t)	16 hours	None	n/a	Olga Sydney (t)	16 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Language

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by John Francis Templeson on 13:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• John Francis Templeson (talk · contribs) No longer allowed to participate per community topic ban.
• Selçuk Denizli (talk · contribs)
• ReconditeRodent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have brought several sources that claim Iraqi Turkmani to be dialect Azeri to the article. That was reverted by user Selçuk Denizli, who claimed that these sources are not good enough. Then I gave an extensive information on the sources and showed that all of them are academic and written by well-known specialists. My colleague ignored this information and kept asserting that these sources lack credibility. The 3O, that basically supported me, didn't persuade him neither. The discussion reached the stalemate, Selçuk Denizli just repeats the same.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, 3O

How do you think we can help?

Consider both point of views and explain who is right and who is wrong.

Summary of dispute by Selçuk Denizli

Unfortunately User:JFT has one aim: to label the Iraqi Turkmen as "Azeri". Whilst I acknowledge that there are similarities with the Iraqi Turkmen dialect(S) and Azeri (after all, both are Turkic), this user refuses to understand that they are not one language. Officially, the Iraqi Turkic dialectS (which vary region to region) are collectively recognized as Turkmen not "South Azeri". They show traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic (as well as additional influence from Arabic and Kurdish), as the majority of linguistic studies on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects show. Just because this user has found some sources (most of which are not peer-reviewed) saying that they speak "South Azeri" does not make it true, for I have found over 20 sources that do the same for "Turkish" (which I have not included in the article nor the talk page). The article already acknowledges that there are traces of Azeri Turkic, but this user will not stop until they portray the Iraqi Turkmen as Azeris. They have not contributed positively to the article at all; to repeat, their only action has been to add "Azeri" in the article whilst dismissing the realities of the past-to-present Iraqi Turkmen dialects and its legal status. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ReconditeRodent

I was responding to a WP:3O request. JFT had presented nearly a dozen reliable sources which classify the dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen as "South Azeri", together with those spoken over the border in Iran. One researcher (Christiane Bulut) who has written extensively on the topic argues that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are instead a transitional group between South Azeri and modern Turkish, which has imparted influence as a prestige language. Most Iraqi Turkmen, including Selçuk, do not see themselves as "Azeri" (Azerbaijani), and feel a far greater affinity to Turkey and the Turkish language, which is also the Iraqi Turkmen's official written language. (North Azeri (Azerbaijani), Turkish and the dialects spoken in Iraq and Iran all have degrees of mutual comprehensibility with one another.)

As I see it, my proposed phrasing for the start of the 'Language' section, which JFT seemed happy with, tried to account for all these viewpoints, while still making clear that the dialects are "generally referred to as South Azeri".

In any case, the article previously described the dialects as Turkish, which I can find no academic support for, so, while the discussion was still ongoing, I corrected that and some smaller things which I thought we'd agreed upon, while trying not to take a hard stance on the classification. Selçuk clearly didn't agree with part of this, and has since re-written the entire section, strongly emphasising the connection to Turkish (though most of the new content I would be happy to keep if better contextualised), almost exclusively citing Bulut (who they claim is more or less the only usable source), and removing any mention of South Azeri from the introduction. I was going to call an RfC but Selçuk had changed everything so much it would've taken a while to prepare and then this happened. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Language discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I did, I have written them on the talk page of the article. If I had to write them in their own talk pages — sorry, I just didn't know. It is first time I make an appeal here. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep the discussion to a minimum before a volunteer has opened the resolution proces. --MrClog (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Selçuk Denizli, I have repeatedly said that I acknowledge that there is no consensus on the Azeri-Iraqi Turkmani dialectical relation. And I asked you to bring any source you want (there is already a one), that show Iraqi Turkmani as independent language, so we could attribute both opinions and present them in the article. Actually this is what we did (see the variant of the colleague that represented the 3O). But your only concern is to avoid using the sources that describes Iraqi Turkmani as a dialect of Azeri. And you cannot, because all the sources that I brought are peer-reviewed and academic. Message to other users: If I didn't have to post this message here, please, excuse me and delete or move it. John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC) You now say that you acknowledge there is no consensus; well, were you not seeking to describe the Iraqi Turkmen dialects as “Azeri” on 5 March 2019? If not, why are you seeking dispute resolution? The article already acknowledges that there are traces of Azeri Turkic, but you still continue. For over a month now, I have clearly shown (using studies on the Iraqi Turkic dialects) that it is influenced by several languages. Unfortunately, you have misused numerous sources by only quoting (or miss-quoting) parts of the studies that work in your favour; in addition, you seem to deceive users (perhaps unintentionally, I'm not quite sure yet) by describing these sources as "all peer-reviewed" – this simply is not true. You cannot fool us with an excessive number of footnotes which include non-linguistic sources or sources that are not peer-reviewed. You incorrectly cited Hendrik Boeschoten as "Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson"; he lists the people/language as "Iraq Turkmens", not "Azerbaijanian" (as he does for Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran), yet you failed to show this. Ethnologue is not peer-reviewed; even so, it lists "Turkmen" and "South Azeri" as two separate languages in Iraq (again you failed to show this). You have also taken Hidayet Kemal Bayatlı's work out of context; he calls the dialects Irak Türkmen Türkçesi ("Iraqi Turkmen Turkish") and says that Azeri is part of the eastern Oghuz branch of Turkic (p.329), but the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are of the western branch. Then you use non-linguistic sources e.g. Găzănfăr Pashai̐ev and ‎Mâhir Nakip which is about Iraqi Turkmen folklore. So please be clear with your agenda. I have just looked at your edit history and can see that yesterday on the article Nader Shah you did something similar. You seem to keep pushing for Azerification; this is unacceptable. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC) You have something to say about Gerhard Doerfer and Iranica also?) There are dozens of classifications of Oghuz group. Again, you chose the one, that you like, and presented it as only true. And let me repeat again. There are sources that classify Iraqi Turkmani as a dialect of Azeri. Whatever you do, there are. And the sources that don't accept this classification. What I try to do, is make both opinions present in the article. What you want to do, is present only opinions, that only talk about traces of Azeri in Iraqi Turkmani. I want the both opinions to be present, you want only one of them. Do you feel the difference? he lists the people/language as "Iraq Turkmens", not "Azerbaijanian" (as he does for Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran), yet you failed to show this. I have always called the language of Iraqi Turkmens as Iraqi Turkmani. I know that and I didn't try to challenge this name. I don't know, what is strange for you here, the source clearly says that there is an Azerbaijanian-speaking group in Iraq that called Turkmens. And yes, the book comprises several articles on Turkic language, that are edited and compiled by Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson. While I had to mention the author of the article, but my mistake isn't that big. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC) The Iranica article is extremely vague about Iraq, only mentioning it by passing; in fact, you have not presented a single source which gives a detailed study on how Iraqi Turkmen dialects are part of Azerbaijani. I compromised by including Larry V. Clark and Hendrik Boeschoten, neither of which focus on Iraqi Turkmen and both of which give incorrect population estimates, for the 1957/58 census recorded 567,000 Turkmen whilst Clark mentions a figure of 200,000 and Boeschoten a figure of 400,000. I repeat again, none of these are a study on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects. Ironically, Christiane Bulut, who is by far the most important contemporary academic focusing on Iraqi Turkic, has been downplayed by you for sources that just happen to say "Azeri" in passing. This goes back to my initial concern with you: you do not seem to have an interest in the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; you simply want to brand it as "Azeri" and move on to the next article you wish to Azerify. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Dostum, the talk goes more and more agressive. Let's stop here. Both of us expressed our opinions, so mediators will decide, who is right and who is wrong. If I'll be proven wrong, I won't continue and I hope you will do the same. OK? No need to get nervous. And I hope we will be friends, no matter the result is. I don't need enemies. John Francis Templeson (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Sure, let's leave it there. If you were to provide detailed studies on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects that are peer-reviewed and support your arguments I would add them to the article. Also, I must add, the reason why I decided to re-write the section was firstly because User:ReconditeRodent had edited the first paragraph without agreement on the talk page. In addition, discussions between the two of you regarding other sources, such as one published by Radio Free Europe, was just adding more unreliable sources to the discussion. We must stick to academic/linguistic sources that have been peer-reviewed and, where possible, the main focus should be on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects, not just studies mentioning Iraq in passing with one short sentence or phrase. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I will open this resolution if no other volunteer has done so on Saturday. --MrClog (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog, Selçuk Denizli, and ReconditeRodent: John Francis Templeson has received a 6 month community topic ban which will preclude further participation in the dispute, including this discussion User talk:John Francis Templeson#Topic banned from the Middle East, Caucasus region, Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples, broadly construed Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

@John Francis Templeson, Selçuk Denizli, and ReconditeRodent: I hereby open the resolution process. Before I dive into the content, please allow me to set up a few rules:

1. Do not directly respond to each other. You are here because that apparently does not work.
2. Comment only on content, not user conduct. So, this also means no personal attacks.
3. Do not engage in edit wars. If you do engage in one, I'll have to make a report at WP:AN/EW.

Now, I have no extensive knowledge on the subject, but I do understand that the issue is whether or not the article should claim that Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri speakers. Both parties claim there are realiable sources that claim their side to be correct. Therefore, please briefly explain what you want the article to read and list a maximum of 10 reliable sources that support your understanding of the subject. If there are more, list the 10 best sources you have. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @ReconditeRodent: as a reminder. --MrClog (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

First statement by editors

Do not engage with each other!
John Francis Templeson: I want to add statement that according to some sources Iraqi Turkmeni is considered as Azeri. And also I don't mind if there will be added that some others classify Iraqi Turkmeni as separate language (I know that Christiane Bulute has such position, I'll be grateful if Selçuk Denizli will add some more). On the whole, I want both opinion to be present here. Some sources that classify Iraqi Turkmeni as Azeri:

• Bilgehan Atsız Gökdağ, Irak Türkmen Türkçesinin şekil bilgisine dair notlar (International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education Volume 1/1 2012 p. 113-123, Turkey).
• Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson, The Turkic Languages (Routledge, 2015) — The Speakers of Turkic Languages by Hendrik Boeschoten.
• Encyclopedia Iranica, AZERBAIJAN viii. Azeri Turkish
• Gerhard Doerfer, İran'da Türkler (Türk Dili, TDK Yay., Sayı: 431, Kasım 1987)
• Several Soviet and Russian sources, including БСЭ 1970, Азербайджанский язык; Азербайджанцы. (Grand Soviet Encyclopedia)
• Prof. Dr. Hidayet Kemal Bayatlı, Irak Türkmen Türkçesi (T.C. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ana Bilim Dalı Yüksek Lisan Tezi). John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli: First of all, I must stress that I am an Iraqi Turkmen and was brought up speaking an Iraqi dialect of Turkic. Unfortunately, there are many websites which write incorrect information on our community (some incorrectly call us Azeris whilst others incorrectly group us under the Turkmen people of Turkmenistan -- mostly in passing, suggesting lack of knowledge). It is for these reasons that I have stressed the need to use sources by academics who are not only peer-reviewed but who are also specialists on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects or who focus on the legal status of minority languages in Iraq.

I have used the following sources (as well as several others) in the current version of the Iraqi Turkmen article, therefore, I wont repeat myself here (unless it is required). The 10 sources providing the most in-depth information on the Iraqi Turkmen, including dialects, official status, education, and media and literature are:

Dialects:

• Bulut, Christiane (2000), "Optative constructions in Iraqi Turkmen", in Göksel, Aslı; Kerslake, Celia (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, ISBN 3-447-04293-1
• Johanson, Lars (2001), Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map (PDF), Svenska Forskningsinstitutet i Istanbul
• Johanson, Lars (2006), "Historical, cultural and linguistic aspects of Turkic-Iranian contiguity", in Johanson, Lars; Bulut, Christiane (eds.), Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag
• Bulut, Christiane (2007), "Iraqi Turkman", in Postgate, J.N. (ed.), Languages of Iraq: Ancient and Modern, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, ISBN 090347221X
• Bulut, Christiane (2018b), "The Turkic varieties of Iran", in Haig, Geoffrey; Khan, Geoffrey (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110421682

Legal/official status:

• Karimi, Ali (2016), "Linguistic and Cultural Rights in the Arab Constitutions: From Arabism to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity", in Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J. (eds.), Constitutionalism, Human Rights, and Islam After the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0190627646
• Bammarny, Bawar (2016), "The Legal Status of the Kurds in Iraq and Syria", in Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J. (eds.), Constitutionalism, Human Rights, and Islam After the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0190627646
• Bulut, Christiane (2018), "Iraq-Turkic", in Haig, Geoffrey; Khan, Geoffrey (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110421682

Education:

• Shanks, Kelsey (2016), Education and Ethno-Politics: Defending Identity in Iraq, Routledge, ISBN 1-317-52043-2

Media and Literature (I have not yet written a section on literature):

• Saatçi, Suphi (2018), "The Turkman of Iraq", in Bulut, Christiane (ed.), Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic-Speaking Minorities of the Periphery, Harrassowitz Verlag, ISBN 3447107235

These sources are the most detailed peer-reviewed sources on the Iraqi Turkmen. None of these claim that the Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri or speak Azerbaijanian. These sources do not rely merely on one-liner sentences to "prove" the reality. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent: Besides everything already listed, I came across one source providing the following citation for the statement that Turkmeni “is closer to Azeri than Turkish”:

• Овезов-Каджаров 1993: 141, 185–187; cf. [Sâdettin] Buluç 1966 [Kerkük hoyratlarına dair], 1979 [Teknik Resim Uygulamalari-macit], [Abdullatif] Benderoğlu 1976, Дурдысв-Кадыров 1991: 50–53

As a tertiary source I might also mention David Nissman, an expert in the history and politics of the region who is himself cited by Bulut, who seems comfortable calling the language of the Iraqi Turkmen "the same" as that of the Iranian Azeris:

• Nissman, David (28 July 2001). "The Southern Azeri-Iraqi Turkmen Connection". RFE/RL. Retrieved 29 April 2019. The pressures on [the Iraqi Turkmen] are at least as great as those on the Iranian Azeris to conform to the demands of Iranian ethnic, political, and religious pressures. And yet this is not what unites the two peoples: it is that they share the same language and, in part, the same traditions.

Everything I've seen suggests this is at least currently the default view. It could be outdated, it could be wrong (although an argument about whether to put some dialects with one language or call them a "transitional group" between that language and another seems like it's unlikely to have a clean answer), but for now it's what most sources say. All I want is for this idea to be mentioned once (nearish the start) and not in a way that implies it's an errant or minority view. It doesn't have to imply that because it's widespread it must be right. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Thank you for your replies. As far as I understand, there are at least eight sources that say sources Iraqi Turkmen are Azari speakers and at least ten sources that claim they are Turkic speakers. I would like to ask each of you a different question to continue the dispute resolution.

• @Selçuk Denizli: Please briefly explain why you oppose mentioning that some sources call Iraqi Turkmen Azari speakers. You may discuss the quality of the other editors' sources if needed.
• @ReconditeRodent: Please bring a proposed text in with which you would agree.

--MrClog (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No one's disputing that their language is Turkic, since South Azeri is a subcategory of Turkic. Turkmeni has historically been called Turkish when listed as an official language but no one's arguing that from a linguistic perspective. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent, thank you for the clarification. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by editors

Do not engage with each other!
Selçuk Denizli:

I am opposed to three issues: the use of non-linguistic sources, the use of sources which are not peer-reviewed, and the use of studies which do not focus on the Iraqi Turkmen.

Unfortunately, the list provided by User:John Francis Templeson is full of contradictions and inaccuracies by the authors and have been taken out of context on Wikipedia. For example, although Professor Hendrik Boeschoten does say there is "a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijanian – speaking part of the population" he lists the language/people as "Iraq Turkmens" not Turkish nor Azerbaijianian and gives an incorrect population of 400,000 in 2015 (see page 5). (Please note that the Iraqi census of 1957/59 shows that there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen who listed their mother tongue as "Turkish", forming 9% of the population). Similarly, there are problems with Dr. Hidayet Kemal Bayatlı's work: he calls the Iraqi Turkmen dialects "Irak Türkmen Türkçesi" (Iraqi Turkmen Turkish) but then says: "The language spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen falls under Azeri (Eastern Oghuz)" (page 329); however, Azeri falls under Western Oghuz not Eastern Oghuz, which again shows incorrect information. The sources by Gerhard Doerfer focus on Iran not Iraq, these are not studies on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects.

I do appreciate User:ReconditeRodent's attempt to help us come to an agreement, but the footnotes he/she has listed from Dr Larry Clark's study does not provide evidence that Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri speakers, for the source says they "may number more than 200,000, who speak a western Oguz dialect closer to Azeri than to Turkish" (page 11). Whilst Clark says it is "closer to Azeri", he does not say it is Azeri, and an estimate of "more than 200,000" shows that the source is out of touch with the reality, for there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen speakers in 1957/59 (listed as "Turkish" at the time) and now there are over 3 million Iraqi Turkmen according to the Iraqi Ministry of Planning (2013).

We should avoid using random non-linguistic articles, such as the Radio Free Europe publication discussed above, because it will only open the floodgates in the future and cause further disputes. There are many websites which also claim that Iraqi Turkmen speak a Turkish dialect, such as the CIA World Factbook, Minority Rights Group International, and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (page 2). There are many scholars who have published books which say that Iraqi Turkmen is a Turkish dialect or that there are Turkish-speaking people in Iraq, such as Professor Charles Warren Hostler (page 12), Professor Yılmaz Çolak (page 16), Dr Henry Field (page 11)... the list is actually quite extensive... But I refrained from using these sources because, as I keep stressing, the language section should focus on linguistic, peer-reviewed, sources which focus on the Iraqi Turkmen dialect(s). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, so far not a single linguistic source has been provided that claims Iraqi Turkmen speak "South Azeri" so I do not understand why this would be suggested for an introduction. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent:

For the introductory paragraph of the language section:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language variously known as Turkmen/Turkoman, Turkmeni, Iraqi Turkmen, or Iraqi Turkic (to distinguish it from the Turkmen language of Turkmenistan). In linguistic sources it is usually referred to as a dialect of South Azeri, grouping it with the dialects in neighbouring Iran, although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a “transitional dialect group” between South Azeri and Turkish due to heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmen themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish, which is used as a prestige language and the official written language.

Other than that I'd be mostly happy to leave things as they are, with Selçuk's new introduction as the second paragraph and the "Classification of dialects" section removed since it's a mess. The line "Iraqi-Turkic is said to be particularly close to the Turkish dialects of Diyarbakır and Urfa in south-eastern Turkey." can probably be reincorporated somewhere, bearing in mind that the source itself says "[Bulut] concludes that the dialects originally display numerous features of the Afshar or Southern Oghuz group but also exhibit similarities with certain southeastern Anatolian dialects as those of Urfa and Diyarbekir." ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Diyarbakır is also closer to Azeri than Turkish, and some shared features "may be due to the presence of the [otherwise South Azeri-speaking] Bayat tribe" in eastern Anatolia. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Third statement by moderator

Thank you for your responses.

• @ReconditeRodent: Could you please comment on the concerns brought up by Selçuk Denizli?
• @Selçuk Denizli: Could you please bring up a proposed text that you would agree with?

--MrClog (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent and Selçuk Denizli: Reminder. :) --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by editors

Selçuk Denizli:

Sorry for my late reply. ReconditeRodent had expressed removing the "Classification of dialects" heading, so I have written an introduction with that in mind:

The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often called "Iraq Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish", and "Iraqi Turkic". Officially, Iraq had recognized "Turkish" as a minority language in 1932, until the military junta introduced the names "Turkman" and "Turkmanja" in 1959. Today, the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 recognizes the Iraqi Turkmen dialects as "Turkmen/Turkomen".

With regard to phonology, vocabulary, morphology and syntax, the Iraqi Turkmen varieties show autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish, whilst others have described it as an "Azeri", "Turkish", or "Eastern Anatolian" dialect. Professor Christiane Bulut has said that publications from Azerbaijan often use expressions such as “Azeri (dialects) of Iraq” or “South Azeri” with political implications; yet, in Turcological literature, closely related dialects in Turkey and Iraq are generally referred to as "eastern Anatolian" or "Iraq-Turkic/-Turkman" dialects, respectively.

The Iraqi Turkmen dialects show numerous features with Afshar or Southern Oghuz groups, as well as similarities with southeastern Anatolian dialects – such as Urfa and Diyarbekir. Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish ("Irak Türkmen Türkçesi"), and their written language is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools.

In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

References

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent:

• While mistakes don’t invalidate someone’s work as a whole, the only thing Selçuk has brought up which strikes me as a likely mistake is Bayatlı putting Azerbaijani as Eastern Oghuz. Our page on Azerbaijani seems to do the same thing but unless it’s an alternative model excluding Turkmenistani they probably mean to say it’s part of the Eastern branch of Western Oghuz. As for the rest:
  • Different population figures may be due to estimates from different sources (given this is largely before the internet as well), which can also differ for political reasons, different criteria for who to count, and republication.
  • “a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijanian – speaking part of the population” obviously means “a Turkish-speaking – or rather Azerbaijani-speaking – part of the population” not “a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijani – part of the population who can speak” so the ethnonym doesn’t need to change. I’d appreciate it if we could not spend any more time on trying to discredit and re-credit every source based on irrelevant trivialities and wilful misinterpretation.
• Other sources referring to Iraqi Turkmen as Turkish exist because all these languages (including “Azeri”) are sometimes called “Turkish” (and “Türkçesi” in Turkish and so on), especially historically. The idea of Iraqi Turkmen being a dialect of modern Turkish, meanwhile, is based either on cultural factors or confusion caused by the previous usage, which is why I felt it was pretty much covered by the self-identification bit and the (would-be) following paragraph. The “Azeri” label, by contrast, stems from (albeit sparse) linguistic research. Even Christiane Bulut seems to acknowledge (as we’ve been over on Talk:Iraqi Turkmen) that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish, at least historically.
• Gerhard Doerfer is an expert, and cites the following for the claim that the language of the Iraqi Turkmen is “Azeri” in the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia Iranica:
  • Choban Khıdır Haydar, İrak türkmen ağızları, dissertation, Istanbul, 1979.
  • M. Š. Širäliev, “K voprosu ob izuchenii i klassifikatsii azerbaĭdzhanskikh dialektov,” Izvestiya azerbaĭdzhanskogo filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1941, 1944.

He says the same thing in his paper, citing the work of Sadettin Buluç (from earlier if you remember), who Bulut also cites regularly.

• And since I’m here have some more sources:
  • GÖKDAĞ, Bilgehan A. (2019). “Telafer Ağzı”. Karadeniz Araştırmaları. XVI/61: 102-119.
  • Atsız GÖKDAĞ, Bilgehan (2012). "Some Notes on the Morphology of the Iraqi Turkmen Dialect". International Journal Of Turkish Literature Culture Education. 1 (1): 113–123. doi:10.7884/teke.15.
  • Collin, R.O. (2009) Words of war: the Iraqi Tower of Babel, International Studies Perspectives, 10(3),pp. 245–264. “The Turkmen or Turcoman population of Iraq speaks a dialect of Turkish, which Ethnologue ⁄ISO accurately classifies as Southern Azerbaijani (AZB), despite the fact that most Iraqi Turkmen would reject this label and look to Ankara in Turkey as a cultural focus, rather than Azerbaijan.”
• North and South Azeri are distinct enough for Ethnologue to consider them separate languages, even though, much like how all these languages are sometimes called “Turkish”, they are both often called “Azeri”. I found another piece by Bulut:
  • Idor, Erik; Theander, Gren (1997). Orientalia Suecana (in German). Almquist & Wiksell Periodical Company. p. 9. [translated] The literature has long noted similarities between Iraqi Turkmen and certain southeast Anatolian dialects around the region of of Urfa/Diyarbekir. On the other hand, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are often labelled "Azeri". Even the classification given by Hussein Shahbaz Hassan (1979), one of the few experts on the subject, is extremely vague: "The Kerkuk dialect today, according [...] to our observations, is more or less a dialect of Azeri Turkic." (Hassan 1979:468)

It’s vague, as she goes on to explain, because Hussein means 'South Azeri' by Azeri Turkic, rather than Azerbaijani. As mentioned earlier, Ethnologue classes Iraqi Turkmen as South Azeri too, so we might as well be specific.

All that said, I’d like to modify my proposal a little:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language (Türki or Turkmanja) called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraqi Turkic. Linguistic sources generally group it with dialects in neighbouring Iran as “South Azeri”, although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a “transitional dialect group” between South Azeri and Anatolian Turkish dialects due to heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish, which is used as a prestige language and the official written language.

References

Fourth statement by moderator

@Selçuk Denizli and ReconditeRodent: Thank you for your responses. I'm going to allow both of you to submit a text you think both of you could agree on, as well as providing a proposed text based upon the sources you have provided.

The sources provided seem to insinuate that most linguistic sources consider the language South Azeri, but there are also sources that call it Turkish, who should be given due weight. The text is (excluding wikilinking and refs):

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language (Türki or Turkmanja) called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraqi Turkic. Linguistic sources often group it with dialects in neighbouring Iran as “South Azeri”, although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a “transitional dialect group” between South Azeri and Anatolian Turkish dialects due to the heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmens themselves, as well as certain linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish ("Irak Türkmen Türkçesi"), and their written language is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

If you disagree with this text, please briefly explain why. As mentioned, you may submit a compromise of your own. --MrClog (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by editors

Selçuk Denizli:

I cannot support this, particularly the first sentence; no citations have been presented which perhaps explains why there are some inaccuracies. Specifically, there is confusion in the terminology: "Turki" is a historic Ottoman term, Lisan-ı Türki (i.e. تركی‎ لسان ) means "Ottoman/Turkish language" (just as Lisan-ı Farsi means Persian and Lisan-ı Arabî means Arabic); "Turkmanja" is a modern Iraqi political term introduced after the military junta. So "Turki" and "Turkmanja" are not synonymous. So far, hardly any of the sources mention South Azeri as the spoken language of the Iraqi Turkmen (sources that say it is close to it need to be written as such), so it cannot be presented as the majority opinion. Of the linguistic sources, Bulut mentions that Iraqi Turkmen shows traces of both South Azeri and Ottoman Turkish. Therefore, the Ottoman Turkish influence (i.e. not the Anatolian dialects, but the Ottoman administrative official language) must not be neglected either.

Whilst "Iraqi Turkmen" and "Iraqi Turkic" have been kept in the proposal, "Iraqi Turkish" should be included too, for it is the term used on the official map presented on the homepage of the the Turkic Languages Journal website (cited by ReconditeRodent and myself). The official recognition status (from 1932 to now) should not be deleted; nor should the source by Bernt Brendemon stating that it is an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, or the source by Lars Johanson stating that the Iraqi Turkmen syntax differs "sharply" from Irano-Turkic. By removing all this from the main heading, the section is no longer neutral -- basically, the first sentence is not representative of the larger influences; rather, it is a reminder of the popular pan-Turkists rhetoric which wishes to join Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Iranian Azerbaijan as one nation through the Iraqi Turkmens -- we should avoid such a dangerous path. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have written another proposal with hopes that this would suit us all:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language, historically called Türkî, which is often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkish", or "Iraqi Turkic" in linguistic sources. Officially, Iraq had recognized Turkish as a minority language in 1932, until the military junta introduced the names "Turkman" and "Turkmanja" in 1959. Since 2005, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are recognized as a minority language called "Turkmen/Turkomen". The Iraqi Turkmen varieties show autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish or that it is an "Azeri" dialect. Iraqi Turkmens themselves, as well as some linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish, or, more specifically, an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, which they refer to as "Irak Türkmen Türkçesi". Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. The written language of the Iraqi Turkmens is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet, which was adopted in 1997. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Since ReconditeRodent insisted on using Larry V. Clark's Turkmen Reference Grammar, I draw attention to page 19 where he lists "Eastern Anatolian" under Western Oguz > 1) "Turkish" > d) "Eastern Anatolian dialects". Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Selçuk Denizli, would you be OK if Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish is changed to "most linguistists" per the prior discussion? --MrClog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, the word "most" is subjective; I could also provide vague literature, similar to the citations referring to "Azeri", which claim it as "Turkish". But I used the word "some" because it is more neutral.

ReconditeRodent's proposal below (signed at 16:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)) is selective with citations, favoring "Azeri" -- to the point that a journal citation has been given without information on the name of the article or its author (i.e. "Idor, Erik; Theander, Gren (1997). Orientalia Suecana"). Furthermore, footnotes from Clark (1998) have simply been copy-pasted without any verification: what does Овезов-Каджаров 1993 etc. actually say? If this information cannot be provided then it should not be cited. Clark (1998) is enough.

In my proposals, I've compromised by including sources insisted by ReconditeRodent (including Clark, 1998; Bayatlı 1996); yet, ReconditeRodent has removed all the English studies on Iraqi Turkmen dialects -- which, in fact, do not mention Iraqi Turkmen dialects as Azerbaijani (i.e. Christiane Bulut -- not in ReconditeRodent's footnotes, Lars Johanson, Bernt Brendemon). Why does their new proposal omit the fact that Iraqi Turkmen dialects are also called "Iraqi Turkish" and "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish"? Why not mention the legal status? Why cite Hendrik Boeschoten's article yet omit using the studies of all other linguists who have also contributed to the Turkic Languages Journal? Why continue to cited Ethnologue when I have pointed out that the website contradicts itself: it lists "Azerbaijani, South: 2,004,000" and then further down the SAME list it says "Turkmen: 400,000", see:"Iraq:Language", so how can this be relied upon? A non-linguistic source (i.e. Richard Oliver Collin) cannot "validate" this pro-Ethnologue argument -- especially since there is clearly confusion on their website.

I have been willing to include studies on Iraqi Turkmen dialects which say "Azeri", however, I refuse to accept a proposal which does not also mention the Ottoman Turkish and Anatolian traces. As a native speaker, the last proposal below is actually offensive -- it completely disregards the fact that Iraqi Turkmen has autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Imagine you were on Turkish Wikipedia writing on the Canadian English article that it has "elements of both British English and American English, as well as many uniquely Canadian characteristics" (as the article quite rightly says) and then I come in, as someone with no knowledge of English, and continuously use vague sources to write proposals saying it is American English.... This is what is going on here.

One last comment in this very long post (which I sincerely apologize for), Tekin's study groups the "Kerkuk and Erbil dialects" in the subgroup that says "gal" rather than "kal", but Cypriot Turkish also uses "gal" rather than "kal", that does not make Cypriot Turks Azeri-speakers. This is shown in all Cypriot Turkish dictionaries. In fact, Lars Johanson (2009) touches on similarities with Iraqi Turkic and Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish dialects in his article "Modals in Turkic (see p.502. p.503-04, respectively) and places Iraqi Turkic as separate, though similar, with Azeri (p.493). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References

ReconditeRodent: I'm okay including a mention that some sources call the language Turkish on the basis of the Studies in Turkish Linguistics citation, but I would ideally request changing "certain linguistic sources" to "a few linguistic sources", since none of the others cited by Selçuk qualify as linguistic and none discuss the classification, and also because of the ambiguity mentioned earlier.

I had also been thinking that modern Turkish Turkish was the written language based on Bulut's description of how hard it is to find written transcripts but maybe I've got that wrong.

Overall, though, I think it's excellent and prioritises information very well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is continuing I was also wondering if anyone can give me a link to Bernt Brendemon's article for context since at least one classification system I've found refers to "East Anatolian dialects of Azerbaijani".

@ReconditeRodent: How do you feel about the proposal of Selçuk, specifically if the suggestion I left is implemented? --MrClog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: I think it puts a little too much emphasis on official recognition throughout history by putting it first (I'm happy for it to be in a later paragraph). It doesn't make clear that when people call the language "Azeri", they generally mean the "Azeri" of Iran, as Bulut explains. The "autochthonous" line is a little clunky, being lifted directly from the source, doesn't link up with anything in the rest of the text as far as I can tell, and could also be misunderstood as suggesting an 'original' non-Turkic language or one that didn't already fall within the west Oghuz spectrum. "Eastern Anatolian" is primarily a geographic term, so I'd still like to see the context for the line which calls it an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, and preferably a second linguistic source referring to the language as Turkish (particularly in a context which implies in some way that this is as opposed to Azeri). Though it's also lifted, I like the "syntax" line and would probably put it later since it's arguably a little arbitrary for the intro, but we can include it if necessary. Since you've already proposed a version which I would accept I think it would be easier to work forwards from that based on Selçuk's specific criticisms. I've made a preliminary attempt based on some of the comments:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraq-Turkic. According to Christiane Bulut, it constitutes a “transitional dialect group” between the Turkic dialects of northwest Iran and eastern Anatolia, within the continuum between (South) Azeri and Turkish. While linguistic sources generally say it is closer to Azeri (as spoken in Iran), Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. Turkish is also used as the official written language. Additionally, many Iraqi Turkmen learn Arabic through mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes

Fifth statement by editors

First of all, let me restate ReconditeRodent's proposal:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraq-Turkic. According to Christiane Bulut, it constitutes a “transitional dialect group” between the Turkic dialects of northwest Iran and eastern Anatolia, within the continuum between (South) Azeri and Turkish. While linguistic sources generally say it is closer to Azeri (as spoken in Iran), Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. Turkish is also used as the official written language. Additionally, many Iraqi Turkmen learn Arabic through mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

Now, let's take this as a starting point to work towards a text that we both can agree on.

• First, @Selçuk Denizli, please make a bulleted list in which you state all things you want added/removed from the text, plus a brief explanation why that change is necessary. (Don't modify the proposal, simply state the problems you have with it.)
• Then, @ReconditeRodent, please address the concerns of Selçuk by either modifying the proposal or explaining why you don't think the problems need to be addressed.

Thank you, --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes

Fifth statement by editors

Selçuk Denizli:

I do appreciate the fact that ReconditeRodent has admitted to being harsh, but the Iraqi Turkmen dialects range from region to region and this simply has not been represented in the discussion -- some are closer to Turkish dialects in Turkey and others to Iran (one of the sources cited by ReconditeRodent actually says this, as I will show below). For this reason, I have written another proposal which I will place below MrClog's request for a statement/reaction to ReconditeRodent's proposal. I felt the need to do this for two reasons: 1) there has been a lot of inaccurate statements made and confusion through the sources; 2) I feel it would be unfair if we only focus on a proposal by ReconditeRodent, rather than both of our proposals (perhaps coming to an agreement through merging?).

Firstly, Mrclog's request:

To keep/add:
In general I do not have a problem with the 2nd to 4th sentences, and I'm willing to keep Bayatlı (1996), Clark (1998), and Boeschoten (2008 - written in your footnotes as "Lars Johanson; Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson") as a compromise. I'm also fine to use Gökdağ (2019), however, this source has been taken out of context. Whilst he says on p.103 that it can be "evaluated" ("değerlendirebileceğimiz") with "Azeri", he also says that "It shows significant similarities ("büyük benzerlikler") to the dialects spoken in South Azerbaijan, Tehran and Saveh in Iran and Urfa, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Gaziantep in Turkey"... he then says that Iraqi Turkmen has two main groups: group "Y" (Tal Afar -- which is the most populous Turkmen region, see p.104 -- Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli dialects) show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa, whilst group "v" (Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin) show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar dialects... So the similarities with Eastern Turkey should be included too... then on page 105 he says that Iraqi Turkmen under the age of 18 now speak Istanbul Turkish (because of education), and on page 106 he says that the Iraqi Turkmen outside the borders (i.e. immigrants) also use Turkish of Turkey.

Linguistic sources also show that there are similarities with Cypriot and Balkan Turkish, which I have provided in my proposal below.

To delete

• The first sentence would need to be completely rewritten, emphasizing how the dialects range region to region (some dialects might be similar to South Azeri but not all are)
• Footnote 1 (i.e. "Овезов-Каджаров 1993: 141, 185–187; cf. [Sâdettin] Buluç 1966 [Kerkük hoyratlarına dair], 1979 [Teknik Resim Uygulamalari-macit], [Abdullatif] Benderoğlu 1976, Дурдысв-Кадыров 1991: 50–53") should be deleted because none of this has been verified, Clark (1998) is enough.
• In Footnote 2
  • Encyclopædia Iranica should be deleted because it only mentions Kirkuk and northern Iraq. Iraqi Turkmen live throughout the country and the dialects range considerably.
  • "Lars Johanson; Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson" should be corrected, these are not the author just the editors.
• Footnote 3 should be deleted, it is an incomplete citation with no author or article given for verification.
• Footnote 4 should be deleted, because ethnologue lists "South, Azeri" and "Turkmen" as separate -- there is clearly confusion here.
• Footnote 5 should be deleted because it is not a linguistic source.

First proposal in Fifth Statement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish" (Irak Türkmen Türkçesi), "Iraqi Turkish" (Irak Türkçesi), and "Iraqi Turkic". As well as possessing their own unique characteristics, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects have been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Therefore, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects – which vary region to region – show similarities with Turkic dialects spoken in Iran (i.e. South Azerbaijan, Tehran, and Saveh) and Turkey (i.e. Urfa, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, and Gaziantep). In general, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects of Tal Afar (approx 700,000 speakers), Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa, whilst the dialects in Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar dialects. Yet, the Kirkuk dialect also shows comparable features with Urfa, and the Erbil dialect with Turkish dialects in Kosovo, Rize, Erzurum, and Malatya. Indeed, Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. Collectively, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects show similarities with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish regarding modality, and the written language of all the Iraqi Turkmen is based on the modern Turkish alphabet. Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957/59 census), as well as some linguistic sources, tend to view their language as "Turkish", or an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, although some linguists place the dialects closer to Azeri, or under an "Azeri" dialect. Nonetheless, diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. Besides their traditional dialects, the Iraqi Turkmen diaspora also communicate in standard Turkish (of Turkey), whilst the younger generations in Iraq (below the age of 18 in 2019) speak Istanbul Turkish with ease. Most Iraqi Turkmen can also speak Arabic and/or Kurdish. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC) References

or what about:

Second proposal in Fifth Statement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish", "Iraqi Turkish", and "Iraqi Turkic". The Iraqi Turkmen dialects possess their own unique characteristics, but have been also been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957/59 census), as well as some linguistic sources, tend to view their language as "Turkish", which they call Irak Türkmen Türkçesi or Irak Türkçesi. Some linguists have also described Iraqi Turkmen as an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, or closer to Azeri, or an "Azeri" dialect. In general, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects of Tal Afar (approx 700,000 speakers), Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa; meanwhile, the dialects in Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar dialects. Yet, the Kirkuk dialect also shows comparable features with Urfa, and 21.4% of the province's population had self-declared their mother tongue as "Turkish" in the last census which asked about language. In addition, the Erbil dialect shows similarities with Turkish dialects in Kosovo, Rize, Erzurum, and Malatya. Indeed, Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects, and diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. Collectively, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects show similarities with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish regarding modality, and the written language of all the Iraqi Turkmen is based on the modern Turkish alphabet. Besides their traditional dialects, the Iraqi Turkmen diaspora also communicate in standard Turkish (of Turkey), whilst the younger generations in Iraq (below the age of 18 in 2019) speak Istanbul Turkish with ease. Most Iraqi Turkmen can also speak Arabic and/or Kurdish. References Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Having taken ReconditeRodent's comment regarding detail (length?) into consideration, perhaps this could work (with discussion of the use of "most" or "some" to follow? -- as of yet, we only have one source, Ethnologue, that claims South Azeri, alongside "Turkmen"):

Additional comment: instead of "some" or "most" (the latter is very subjective!), I think the word "numerous" could work.

Language (Heading) The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen/Turkman", "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish", "Iraqi Turkish", and "Iraqi Turkic". The Iraqi Turkmen dialects possess their own unique characteristics, but have also been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957/59 census), as well as a range of linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a "Turkish" dialect, which they call Irak Türkmen Türkçesi or Irak Türkçesi. Studies have long noted the similarities between Iraqi Turkmen and certain Southeastern Anatolian dialects around the region of Urfa and Diyarbakır, or have described it as an "Anatolian" or an "Eastern Anatolian dialect". Yet, there are also linguists who have said that Iraqi Turkmen is closer to Azeri, or placed certain dialects, particularly the Kirkuk dialect, as "more or less" an "Azeri Turkish" dialect. However, there are linguists who acknowledge similarities with Azeri spoken in Iran but say that Iraqi Turkmen has "greater proximity to Turkish of Turkey". Ethnologue lists "Azerbaijani, South" and "Turkmen" separately in Iraq, the latter displaying "heavy Turkish and Arabic influences lexically with some Azeri features". Collectively, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects also show similarities with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish regarding modality, and the written language of all the Iraqi Turkmen is based on the modern Turkish alphabet. Indeed, modern Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties. Besides their traditional dialects, the Iraqi Turkmen diaspora also communicate in standard Turkish (of Turkey), whilst the younger generations in Iraq (below the age of 18 in 2019) speak Istanbul Turkish with ease. In addition, diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon. Most Iraqi Turkmen can also speak Arabic and/or Kurdish.

Iraqi Turkmen dialects (Sub-heading)

In general, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects of Tal Afar (approx 700,000 speakers), Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa; meanwhile, the dialects in Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar

Turkic dialects. Yet, the Kirkuk dialect also shows comparable features with Urfa, and 21.4% of Kirkuk province's population had self-declared their mother tongue as "Turkish" in the last census which asked about language. In addition, the Erbil dialect shows similarities with Turkish dialects stretching from Kosovo to Rize, Erzurum, and Malatya.

References

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent: I'll admit I've been a bit harsh. I can see Selçuk is trying to compromise and I hope they can see that I am too.

• You're right that the citation should say Christiane Bulut – I was using this Google Books formatting tool to save time.
• I thought it would be helpful to give the original sources in case anyone can find them, or in case the link fails (though unlikely), especially since the Clark source is secondary/tertiary (depending on how you look at it). (Cf. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.)
• I didn't mean to suggest the other sources should be excluded, I just thought it'd save time to only cite the controversial information for now since these proposals keep getting revised.
• I don't want to delete the legal status info, it just seems secondary to me (especially the historical info) so I'd rather it was in a later paragraph. The fact that it's a currently an official language is probably the most that should be in the first paragraph and even that doesn't really give you much insight into the linguistics or culture of it.
• There are a million things this language has been called (remember the earlier drafts?), and I can't find anyone calling it "Iraqi Turkish" other than that map (and I'm not sure being on the website of a publisher automatically makes a map reliable) which is why I took it out. If Selçuk finds a few more citations I guess I don't mind that much about including it.
• The mistake in Ethnologue (assuming it is) probably comes from careless sources like these, and (per earlier) doesn't invalidate it as a whole. In any case, I only mentioned it because it determines whether the language gets its own ISO code or not.
• I'm not saying the "autochthonous" line is wrong, just that it could be clearer. Maybe like: "As well as possessing their own unique characteristics, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects have been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic."
• Lastly, I'm not suggesting we use any of the classification systems in Tekin, I was trying to explain why a source calling the Turkmen dialects "Eastern Anatolian" can't be assumed to mean they're calling them Turkish.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent, could you address the new concerns listed by Selçuk in his section above? --MrClog (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: reminder :) - also, Selçuk has made a proposal of his own. --MrClog (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of the new stuff looks good, though I wouldn't put so much detail in the first paragraph. (Unrelated but I also think it would be good to have the URLs where at all possible.) It's nice that this process has led to lots of new information that will get included, thanks to Selçuk. The only reason I ended up moving towards calling the Iraqi Turkmen dialects a "language" was because it's easier to write about (and since lots of things we call languages which have very broad dialectal variation) but I'm happy to change it back. Ultimately though, I feel the only thing we really need answered is whether we should say that "most" linguistic sources say Iraqi Turkmen is closer to Azeri/South Azeri than Turkish or just "some". I'd like to request permission to call an RfC to resolve this. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Final comment by volunteer

@Selçuk Denizli and ReconditeRodent: It seems you have agreed on a text, and I have opened an RfC for the "some"/"most" sources dispute here. Are you OK with me closing this dispute resolution request as resolved? --MrClog (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly happy, except

• Bulut, as well as Ethnologue, specifies that that classification more specifically refers to the dialects they speak in Iran, which is clearly vital if they're distinct enough to be considered separate languages
• all the sources on the English names of the Iraq-Turkmen dialects should be in English, naturally
• "Eastern Anatolian" still seems to be a geographic term, not a linguistic one
• I'd like some of the removed citations to be restored, particularly the Orientalia Suecana one with the Bulut quote, Gökdağ, and the Encyclopedia Iranica (it can be in the same ref tag as the other one by Doerfer), as well as the The Turkic Languages one since we're also accepting the passing mention in Studies in Turkish Linguistics
• the line about Cypriot and Balkan Turkish strikes me as undue (at least in the intro)
• I'd still like all citations to be linked, and a chance to review the context of the new sources which supposedly argue that the dialects are mostly closer to Turkish (which I realise now I've been reading as Standard Turkish and Selçuk has been reading as any dialect of Turkish)

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to close this with my final proposal (if this is also ok with ReconditeRodent), it has been a long dispute but we managed to really delve into the topic -- so thank you for your assistance. I have made the suggestion to use the neutral word "numerous" rather than "some" or "most", which I truly believe is an objective and accurate way to describe/"measure" this. Fingers crossed we are nearly there. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli, could you in the meantime try to address the comments of ReconditeRodent? (The RfC will take 30 days, so we have enough time to make some small edits to the final text.) --MrClog (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent:,

• Could you please be specific on which Bulut source you are referring to (we have used so much of her, so I'm confused by this comment)?
• The term "Eastern Anatolian dialect" is used in two of the Turkish sources that you have provided, so I'm not sure why this should be a problem.
• Regarding modals and similarity with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish, I have split the paragraph into two: the introduction is about the Iraqi Turkmen dialects collectively; the second paragraph is more in-depth, focusing on the two main branches of Iraqi Turkmen dialects. It is important to have this in the introduction because the modals differ from Turkey.
• I've provided full citations, fell free to link them -- I have no problem with this. I will slightly amend to read "Turkish dialect". Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog:, of course. I'm just slightly confused by a few points made. But will amend accordingly when ReconditeRodent gets back to me. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've amended. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging ReconditeRodent :) --MrClog (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: reminder --MrClog (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selçuk Denizli: you can add your current proposal to the page, after which I'll close this DRN, per a message on ReconditeRodent's talk page. --MrClog (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rusyns#White Croats

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nicoljaus on 07:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Rusyns#White Croats (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nicoljaus (talk · contribs) Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an old historical dispute about the existence in the Early Middle Ages of the tribes of the “White Croats” and the localization of their lands. The question is complex and does not have a definite solution due to the extreme poverty of sources. In the book of the famous historian Sedov, the following conclusion is made: "Most researchers place these lands in the Czech Republic". Sedov himself believes that the Croats came to Dalmatia together with Avars from the Black Sea region and when he mentions the Croats near the Carpathian Mountains, he does not call them "White". However, the Rusyns article states unequivocally that this White Croats lived in the Ukrainian Carpathians, including Zakarpattia and Prykarpattia, with a reference to this very book of Sedov. I tried to fix this situation, but my opponent rejects all the arguments and reverts my edits, saying that I do not have "basic knowledge". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed this situation on the talk page of the article. How do you think we can help? I would like someone will explain to the opponent the WP:WIKIVOICE rule and why it is impossible to think out for the author of the book what he really means. Summary of dispute by Miki Filigranski The name of White Croats is of general scholarly usage meaning all Northern medieval tribes of Croats, nevertheless their location in Bohemia, Lesser Poland or Western Ukraine. The dispute on the location of White Croatia#Dispute and White Croats in regard to De Administrando Imperio does not include all other historical sources, and it is a strawman argument for not using the wikilink to article of White Croats. It is not correctly presented Sedov's "conclusion" (which was not cited per se) and is ignored by pg. 444. There are several cited references in the "Origins" section placing them in the Eastern Carpathians and as ancestors of the Rusyn population, but that was ignored in the overall discussion. In the attempt to "fix", the editor argued and added a wikilink to the article of "ancient" Croats from the Balkans, which is confusing and misleading to the public as the sources are not reffering to the contemporary Croatian nation because it is not the same as medieval (White) Croatian tribes in the Eastern Carpathians. In the introduction of the discussion which was started by the editor ([1]), "we can not refer to this book in support of this sentence", which is wrong, however, as intermediate solution was proposed removal of pg. 451 or removal of the whole reference as they can be easily replaced, but it was also ignored.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC) The name of White Croats is of general scholarly usage meaning all Northern medieval tribes of Croats, nevertheless their location in Bohemia, Lesser Poland or Western Ukraine. -- I would think that the opponent is mistaken in good faith, but he defends his POV in a completely destructive way. To reinforce his opinion, he uses sources in which the exact opposite is stated, but he does not care. So, to support this statement, he gave a link to the article in Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History ХОРВАТИ. The article directly says that it is a mistake to call the Eastern Croats of the Carpathian region “White Croats”.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Why is the editor who proposed the resolution, on my advice, and did not initially provide WP:OPPONENT summary of the dispute, replying in this section? It is really irritating that the editor is still WP:NOTLISTENING what I say, and misinterpreting that I am in a "mistaken" and "destructive way" reinforcing "my" opinion. The editor is constantly ignoring every other cited source in the article, or misintepreting them, cherry-picking them (like this source where ignored to understand that they are "often" called as White Croats), refusing to get the point that the these tribes are commonly called in the scholarship in such a way, that all the Wikipedian language articles are titled in such a way (White Croats), and that the article titles and naming conventions are based on predominant usage especially in English-language reliable sources. All the discussion is pointless because it is about a naming convention.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Talk:Rusyns#White Croats discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Do I really need to leave this notification now? I had not do that it in time.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:Nicoljaus - Yes. Notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Notified Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator Okay. I will try to moderate this dispute, if this is the sort of dispute where compromise can be reached. I see that there has been some unpleasant discussion above. In DRN, we comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Follow the rules. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential here. Overly long statements may help one feel better, but do not clarify the matter. Now, in one or two paragraphs, will each editor please explain, within 24 hours, what if anything should be done to improve the article? We are talking about the article, not the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion, but do not reply to each other's statements in the section for replies to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors Nicoljaus: From the article "Rusyns", as well as from other articles relating to this issue, the statement should be removed that the "Croats" who lived in the Carpathian region in the Early Middle Ages are precisely "White Croats". It can be mentioned that some consider them "White Croats", but most researchers localize this tribe in the Czech Republic (as Sedov says on p. 326) or "somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire" (as Borri says). There can also be mentioned the reason for this error, as formulated in the Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to give out one of the fringe points of view as an indisputable fact. It is also unacceptable to misinterpret what is written in books in order to reconcile with the opinion that “all northern Croats are White Croats”, which is not found in the sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William Lane Craig

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Squatch347 on 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Squatch347 (talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)
• GretLomborg (talk · contribs)
• Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs)
• Hob Gadling (talk · contribs)
• PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs)

Collapsing all previous discussion and comments about dispute, I've read through it. Let's start with a clean slate. Steven Crossin 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute overview These disputes started initially with the removal of a long standing quote on the William Lane Craig page. This was a quote and topic that had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years. It became a hotbed issue for a number of editors and resulted in changes being made to the page absent discussion on Talk or consensus. In the last few days it has attracted a number of new editors who have begun removing whole sections of the page absent any discussion on the talk page or clear wiki policy supporting the change. I have little confidence given the emotion and POV level on the talk page that a rational discussion of these edits will occur. I think a return to status quo ante (say 20 may or so) would be a good place to start discussion on proposed changes. I should highlight that there is no current "no changes allowed' type arguments here, the request has been for discussion on talk prior to removal of long-standing and repeatedly agreed to content. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have proposed three different suggested text changes to the relevant sections and proposed criteria for the removal of some content as recommended by editors. I have supported removal of several sections for streamlining and published relevant secondary sources when asked. Finally, I've been prompt and courteous in responding to requested changes on the talk page and not escalated discussion with personal attacks, but rather ignored several personal attacks and derogatory comments. How do you think we can help? I believe an emphasis on collaborative editing and a reminder of the wiki policies around biographies by Admins would help calm down the topic a bit. The debate appears to focus more on individual editors' attitudes toward the biography's subject than objective editing, so some monitoring of those edits would help as well. Update: As Robert McClenon prepares to evaluate this case I'd like to update this requested assistance section to be more in line with where, I think, the discussion has evolved to and what the primary matters of contention are. I would propose this [2] as my summary of the issue at hand (specifically the second paragraph onward). The difference seems to be that some editors feel that any discussion of any topic, even in included in a WP:RS, that isn't fully confined to their conception of philosophy should not be included. The question comes down to, if a topic is published by a reputable source, should we be the arbiters of whether it is "vetted" or not? Secondarily, I think mediation can help us work through the points proposed by [User:GretLomborg|GretLomborg] as points of consensus [3]: William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist. Philosophy and theology are not pseudoscience. The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories. The article William Lane Craig is not a science article. The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work. Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers. The article William Lane Craig is a biography. It is right and proper to directly attribute William Lane Craig's thoughts to himself in his biography. As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article William Lane Craig should cover his thought. Examining the list of featured and good articles from the Philosophers [Biography] Task Force, this is common practice (e.g. Søren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology, Bertrand_Russell#Views, and Karl_Popper#Philosophy). None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, in his biography because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong. The standard of inclusion of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be attributed to him based on WP:RS, keeping in mind WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the William Lane Craig article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support. It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of William Lane Craig in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis. Squatch347 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Theroadislong The article has been in a VERY poor state for some time, with far too much unsourced or primary sourced POV trumpery. All attempts to remove this have been reverted. This [4] would be a good place to start again as suggested by User:ජපස. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ජපස Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I reject this dispute resolution as the summary is not written neutrally. If the proposer would rewrite it WP:Writing for the enemy, I will consider undergoing dispute resolution. jps (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GretLomborg I got involved with this article when I noticed nearly every sentence in a basic biographical section was being challenged as "". Many of those facts were already sourced and easily verified in nearby references (sometimes ones even attached to the same sentence). I thought that was odd, so I spent a little time adding relatively easily found references for things like degrees held, etc. I've since been watching the page, and have seen this dispute unfold. My involvement has been limited to some clarifying comments on the talk page, and some reversions of a couple large deletions (one of nearly the entire article content). The article's subject appears to work extensively in atheism/theism debates, and that's a recipe for conflict as we're seeing now. It appears that some editors object to the subject's ideas [5], and are attempting to excise as much article content as they possibly can, sometimes using spurious Wikipedia policy arguments to do so, or by claiming that sources don't support it without making a serious attempt at verification. I think that, despite whatever anyone thinks of the article's subject or his ideas, they should be summarized and represented neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely in his own biography article. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. After doing some research, it appears that one of the most disruptive editors in this dispute User:ජපස/jps has previously been topic-banned from a topic that he probably considers similar to the one of this article (see [6] [7]). He is being uncivil and aggressive by being snarky and sarcastic with other editors whom he opposes and not assuming good faith (see [8] [9] [10]). His behavior on this article may be a reprise of his previous problematic behavior. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Update: As of now [11], pretty much every sentence of the intro, biography, and career sections has one or more supporting cites to either a secondary source or a WP:BLPSELFPUB-acceptable source. This includes sections other editors wanted to WP:TNT. Other sections that were proposed to be WP:TNT'd appear to have always had support via secondary sources in WP:GENREFs (e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument), and I suspect that most if not all of the gaps can be filled in with secondary citations to academic book reviews in theology or philosophy journals, though some of those may only be available in print. I appeal to all the editors involved to make a good-faith efforts to find secondary sources and add inline citations. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Update 2: tl;dr: This dispute has been very fast moving, and I think we're past the WP:TNT stage. However I think it's still necessary to emphasize that in the biography of a philosopher/theologian, the subject's ideas should be summarized neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely. Even if every fiber of an editor's body is opposed to those ideas and their whole field of study, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent and WP:OPPONENT mean they should still be included, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES means theological and Christian sources are acceptable, at least to outline the subject's views and reactions to them within that part of his academic community. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Overall, I agree with Squatch347. The problem would half solved if we just removed the accusation of genocide. One person unjustifiably accusing another person of supporting genocide because they got their panties in a bunch is irrelevant, not noteworthy, and it just doesn't belong in a BLP. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling It is easy to find out that the claim that the topic "had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years" is simply not true. There was never a consensus, there were always the same two sides, with various representatives, and the discussion just stopped in each case without anybody changing their stance. There are some users, like the filing editor, who want to keep every inappropriate part of the article that makes the person Craig look good and his opponents look bad, and who achieved that in every case by sheer persistence and by misrepresentation, instead of valid reasoning. For some reason, all except two of the recent editors who were anti-Came-quote (Theroadislong and ජපස) have not have not been notified here: User:AzureCitizen, User:Guettarda, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PaleoNeonate I am not used to DRN but have promised to look at the article so am offering my assessment. Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. —PaleoNeonate – 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Note by Drmies This article, after the most recent revert by GrettLomborg, is in a terrible condition. jps's cleanup made sense to me. However, if jps wants this to be resolved, he should probably refrain from posting unacceptable personal attacks like this one. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC) William Lane Craig discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Apologies, I thought the template notified them. I have updated everyone now. Squatch347 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified some but not all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I will try in the next 24 hours to open this case for moderated discussion, but first: Stop editing the article. Stop the personal attacks. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, although I have not yet started moderated discussion. Stop editing the article. Stop the personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will try to moderate this discussion, at least for a little while. The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Both civility and conciseness have been in short supply on this article. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not useful. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors My proposal for article improvement would involve two major areas of focus. 1) Review of the section currently called "Apologetics" to reflect areas of Apologetic positions and philosophical works. The goal of this would be to make the page more consistent with other philosophers' pages. See Alvin Plantinga or Daniel Dennett for example. In that effort each major section should be made concise, covering primarily a brief summary of the position, its notable points, and notable publications on the topic. 2) Referencing notability, a table of public debates and notable talks should be included. This is the main source of Craig's non-professional notability and warrants reference. The table should include; participants, topics, locations, notes. - Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Note: I copied Squatch347's sig up here to maintain readable attribution, as the latter half of his comment was rearranged to be at the bottom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The article can be improved by looking for third-party independent sources which discuss Craig's ideas and only including an explanation of the ideas about which third-party independent sources have commented. Furthermore, when an idea of Craig's is in the purview of a particular epistemic community (say, science, for example), the only third-party independent sources which should count are those which are produced by members of that community (say, scientists, for example). If there are no sources which comment upon a particular idea of Craig's from the relevant epistemic community, we should not include the idea in the article. jps (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC) I think the article can be improved by fleshing out the "Apologetics" section (once more-neutrally labeled "Research" prior to this dispute) to give an appropriately complete account of the subject's thought and work. That is what's best for the readers of the encyclopedia and the article. Other content goals may take priority on other parts of Wikipedia, but not in a biography. The subject is clearly notable as a philosopher and theologian ([12] [13] for a few examples), and per WP:NNC, it's inappropriate force the article content of his biography to be subject to further notability evaluation. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to require some other field (e.g. physics) to validate the subject's thoughts and views in order to include them in his biography: if they can be verifiably attributed to him, they should be permitted to be included, regardless or whether they are correct or incorrect in the judgement of some editor. They're his thoughts, and one reads his biography to learn about them. I think this is the core issue, there are smaller implementation details that I won't get into now. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC) A small note to the other editors here and the moderator. I will be offline as part of the national guard until 30 June. No issue with continuing resolution without me in the meantime of course, but I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them if questions or concerns came up. Sorry for the delay. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator Okay. I had meant to ask each editor to give specifics about what they want changed in the article, and so I will do that now. However, here is a summary of what the editors have said: 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research. 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. 4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.) Will each editor please comment on those four points briefly? Comments about what should not be included are not helpful unless they request to omit something in particular that is in the article. Will each editor please list one or two specific changes that they think should be made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research. Rework? Yes. Rename it "research"? No. That's a POV-push. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. I see no purpose to this. WP:NOT#CV. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. The most important thing we can do. These sources should be organized by their levels of independence and they should be from the relevant epistemic communities if they are talking about Craig's specific ideas. 4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.) No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good game to play. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC) 1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research NO. 2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks. NO. 3. Look for independent third-party sources. YES the article still needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from independent reliable secondary sources. On 12th June, out of the 124 sources, 71 were primary sources to his own book or website, this is not acceptable. 4. NO WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research If "apologetics" is challenged, possibly that "views" may suit. Research suggests serious (possibly scientific) research and would be misleading. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks Per WP:NOTCV, instead of a table, if some have particular notability they should be mentioned. Look for independent third-party sources Absolutely, work about that already started. Compare to the Platinga article The other article may itself need work, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed applies. However, WP:BLP and MOS:BLP are more useful. —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research Yes rework, but from a starting point closer to the pre-dispute version ([14]) than current version. I personally think the section should be named something along the lines of "Philosophy and Theology." "Research" is ok (it's not an activity limited to science and science-like activities), but I don't prefer it. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks That seems like too much detail to me. Look for independent third-party sources Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Compare to the Platinga article Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator One editor proposed four points of work. Those four points have been rejected, so we will not go there. I would like to thank User:GretLomborg. Proposing four changes that other editors don't want was useful. Now we have narrowed the field of changes. Now, will each editor please identify one or two proposed changes that should be made to the article? List changes that have not already been discussed and that other editors can agree with or disagree with. Third Statements by Editors Note to moderator: the previous proposals were made by User:Squatch347, not me. I tried to fix a sig problem with his comments, which may be the source of the confusion. I also think the second round was closed before one side of the dispute could comment (as User:Squatch347 is on vacation and I didn't see the updates until now). Here are some news proposals: Re-integrate recently-removed content back into the article from the pre-dispute version [15], so that any issues with it can be discussed in this process. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit," (the matters here aren't "contentious matters related to living people", e.g. "John Doe is a racist axe-murderer"). If we can't do that, I think this process will have difficulties resolving the dispute. Since it's universally agreed that the article would benefit from more secondary sources. Editors in this dispute should find secondary-source support for at least one sentence in the article that needs it. I've been doing this, and it isn't too hard. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC) New proposal: WP:TNT the article and start writing only using third-party independent sources. Sources written by Craig and his acolytes can be worked in later. jps (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator First, I apologize for having misread the authorship of certain comments. Second, since some of the suggestions were made by an editor who is on temporary military duty, I will put this dispute on hold until the end of the month. Third, there have been suggestions that the article be stubbified and rewritten from scratch. If a consensus of the editors agree, I will close this dispute with a resolution to stubbify the article. Fourth, if there is a non-consensus, where at least two editors holding one opinion and at least two editors holding another opinion is a non-consensus, then we will either have to fail this dispute or formulate an RFC, and I would prefer an RFC. Fifth, within the next week (not 48 hours, due to military leave hold), any editor may propose any change that can be put into an RFC, or can make any recommendations for changes to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Back-and-Forth by Editors Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying. I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me. As for RfC propsals, here are mine: Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? - GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Hi there, I just noticed this page. I would oppose WP:TNT. I don't see that the article is too puffy. It points out that he's been accused of defending genocide, for example. However, I do think that more of the critical reaction to his views could be worked in; it is not hard to find since he debates bazillions of people who criticize him. I think it would be good if such material could be worked into the actual discussion of his views, rather than being in a "reception" section. I also think that Craig comes off in the article as purely an apologist, when in fact he has done work on theology that is not apologetic in nature (e.g., his work on the doctrine of the Trinity), and he has made general contributions to philosophy of time and the topic of Platonism that aren't specifically religious. All that gets lost in the current article, and that gives the reader a wrong idea about the scope of his work. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC) The article as it is currently written is a marked improvement over what it was. I believe, but am not certain, that GretLomborg and Squatch347 would like to move it back towards the direction of being an exposition of Craig's treatises rather than an attempt to tease out which of his ideas have received third-party reception. As you point out, it should not be hard to find critical reaction to Craig, but the problem has been that although I have tried, it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources (and, indeed, there has been some pushback as to whether this is really the most important thing we can do right now). WP:TNT is offered by me as an alternative, but I would much rather engage with source gathering, TBH. I can tolerate WP:TNT. I will not abide by whitewashing. jps (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Agree with jps. Returning to the old hagiography is not what we should do. TNT or adding third-party sources. Any new non-apologetic stuff should be sourced to other people too. If such sources do not exist, if it is not important enough for anybody else, then it is obviously not important enough to include here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC) What, specifically, was "hagiography" in the previous version? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Maybe my assessment at the top could be useful to understand, —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC) It wasn't hagiography; most of what was there was accurate. It should not use primary sources, but I think everyone obviously agrees with that, since that's basic WP policy. But Craig is mentioned 90 times in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the cosmological argument, so we can say as much about his view as we like with that as a source. Some of the stuff from the earlier version was unsourced, such as his view on inflation, and unless sources can be found that should come out of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Calling the pre-dispute version a hagiography is an extreme exaggeration, and such exaggerations are very counterproductive. Also, I do not think these statement sections are meant to be discussion forums. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I agree to accumulating more third party sources. Jps had already presented some, I added a few more today and intend to add a few more tomorrow. —PaleoNeonate – 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate: I believe that this is the section that was set aside for back-and-forth discussion, so I'm going to reply to you here. I want to be clear that I'm absolutely agreeing that we should not be relying on primary sources. We should instead rely on the best expert discussion we can find, and that's not popular-level stuff. The experts on his scholarly work are other experts who have summarized and commented on it. There's no reason we cannot use those sources. JSTOR alone has over 500 search results for his name. Scores and scores of book reviews will provide professional summaries of those books. Scores of critical articles will provide reactions to his work. There's no need for OR on Craig or Synth of Craig's work. But we do have to summarize the best possible sources, and those are scholarly sources, which are overwhelmingly abundant in this case. Popular-level material is much, much less reliable. As for detail, I don't really understand how there could be too much detail about the subject of the article. I mean, if relevant info is in RS, why shouldn't we use it? The more well-documented info the better, it seems to me. But I'm open to hearing why this is not the right approach. Can you say what you're worried about with "too much detail" assuming that the detail is in RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC) You're right about this section, thanks. The moderator may of course move my comment (and even restructure it if needed). —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Adding: it's mostly a question of accessibility and weight (with tertiary sources also a good guide there). WP:VNOTSUFF is also relevant, as well as WP:NOTCV. A third party reader with high-school or college level education should be able to have a good idea of the main topic in a few minutes; the sources and/or linked subarticles are extra-material if they need more. If we also consider avoidance of WP:FALSEBALANCE where relevant, there's no need to have extended pro/con material all along... —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC) One more thing: is there somewhere in RS that his views (all of his views? some of them?) are called pseudoscience? Because, if not, it's really not helpful for editors to keep saying or implying that, and it seems to me like a violation of WP:BLP. I agree that we don't want everything on his CV, and that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But his work has received a tremendous amount of attention from scholars in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theology. I believe that we should include all details of his work that have been discussed at the highest levels within his field. There's no reason we can't summarize those sources at an appropriate level for the general reader. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Fifth Statement by Moderator The rules say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, because it hasn't worked before this dispute was brought here. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules again. However, continue the back-and-forth discussion above. Since there is a desire for back-and-forth, do it in the area provided, and the Q-and-A can continue separately. Below, restate whether and why or why not the article should be stubbified and then rebuilt. Also below, provide any proposed changes that should be the subject of an RFC. There is agreement to find more third-party sources. If you can do it, that will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors Repeated from above: Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying. I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me. As for RfC propsals, here are mine: Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? - GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) I oppose TNT or stubify for the following main reason: it won't solve any of the problems. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of the article, and, corresponding to this, a disagreement about appropriate sources. There's obviously a range of options with respect to how much detail we will go into in summarizing Craig's views. There is also a range of options with respect to how much reaction (including critical reaction) we should summarize. Third party reliable sources can and should be found for both of those projects, but we need to decide what sources are appropriate, and how much detail we want. Those problems will immediately afflict the attempt to rebuild the page. Here's my view on these issues. First, it makes sense to focus on the subject of the article, i.e., Craig, rather than his critics. I think we should go into his views in whatever detail is possible with available high-quality sourcing. Second, it also makes sense to include (more briefly) a summary of reactions, including critical reactions, at the end of our summaries of each of his views. Third, I would propose that we focus attention on academic sources that comment on his work. There are plenty of these, and they are going to be the highest quality sources. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I have no opinion about TNT, other than that technically it would allow to establish a new plan from scratch, possibly through extensive work and consensus. It seems that we were now told that we could reply to eachother before the next round? If so: should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? Probably not suppressed, but whenever claims of someone notable touch pseudoscience it is unevitable to find relevant (and appropriate) criticism or commentary, in which case WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE also apply. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. The danger here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH using primary sources, where tertiary sources like other encyclopedias or third party reviews can be very useful to establish what should have weight, etc. should go into his views in whatever detail is possible too much details may return to the point where the article did appear to need WP:TNT. But here again, possibly that analysis of other tertiary sources will help for guidance (WP:TERTIARY). I listed a few secondary and tertiary sources at the article's talk page recently. There probably are more, those are in material I'm familiar with and have easy access to. If the epistemic community is philosophy, there may be more relevant encyclopedias of philosophy for reference. This is probably also true for theology. On the other hand, arguments like Kalam venture into wild territory... Philosophy is like math: symbols can be used to describe anything the mind could conceive; whenever something interacts with known reality (outside of the mind), some become hypotheses that may be tested or questioned. This is also a theologian who insisted on meeting key people in their field like Krauss, in attempt to gain extra legitimacy. —PaleoNeonate – 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator I have extended the time for this discussion to 11 July. (The bot archived this discussion, and I have unarchived it because I don't think it is finished.) If the editors think that it will take longer than that, please so state. This noticeboard is intended primarily for disputes that take no longer than two to three weeks to resolve. I see that there is disagreement as to whether to stubbify the article and start over. In that case, I would suggest that each editor who thinks that the article contains puffery or undue weight stuff identify paragraphs that they propose be deleted and we will put those to RFC. Do any editors have any other specific suggestions for improvements to the article? (Specific means specific.) Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors I do not think there is any true puffery in the article to be removed. Even the pre-dispute version was very light on adjectives of any kind, let alone puffy ones. It needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI (a.k.a. WP:TINFOILHAT) don't apply to this biography article. Theology and philosophy are in fact their own mainstream fields, regardless if any editor wishes they weren't or has more affinity to another field. Craig's work is well within those fields (e.g. to the point that he's published and his work has gotten much commentary in mainstream philosophy journals, and seems quite active and well cited in the sub-field of philosophy of religion). As for specific improvement proposals: The headers should be removed or significantly trimmed down. Some are no longer relevant, and others were most likely inapplicable even when they were added (e.g. logic behind the "the factual accuracy" one seems to be taking issue with Craig himself, not with the accuracy of the biography article itself). In any case, the rational for each of them needs to be justified, in detail. The section that was recently re-titled "Apologetics" should be again re-titled with less POV, something along the lines of "Theological and Philosophical Work" is probably best. It's descriptive and broad enough to encompass Craig's academic activity. There are other, more general improvement proposals that I think should be implemented, but will not go into them because the request was for specific ones. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator I wrote: " The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules." What part of that is there an excuse for not complying with? I meant not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. I will be giving all of the editors of the Craig article a BLP discretionary sanctions warning. This is the last warning. Resume responding to my questions either in the Sixth section or the Seventh section; it doesn't matter which. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors I agree with everything GretLomborg said above. I also strongly support everything in the moderator's last statement. I have made these suggestions: (i) replace primary source references with third-party sources, (ii) all the third-party sources should be professional, academic work, not popular level work, (iii) as much of the pre-dispute version as possible consistent with the first two suggestions should be restored. Perhaps this is not specific enough. If it isn't specific enough, let me look at the section on the Cosmological Argument. In the current version of that section, almost all of the sourcing is good, except for a single primary source reference to Craig (1992). I would support removing that primary source reference, which is gratuitous anyway in the current version. The pre-dispute version had a lot more primary-source material, so it's good that most of that has been removed. However, I would specifically propose reinstating any content from that pre-dispute version--and especially a statement of the Kalam argument itself--that can be sourced in professional academic commentary on Craig's work. The Stanford Encyclopedia, and specifically their article on the Cosmological Argument, is an excellent source for this, and would serve as a source for his version of the argument, and probably more. Nobody can reasonably disparage the SEP: it is funded by NEH and NSF grants, it is published by one of the world's premiere philosophy departments (Stanford), and it publishes blind-reviewed articles. It is absurd to disparage this as a source; the quality of sourcing for our philosophy articles could not get any higher. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC) I am concerned that the moderator is not unbiased. I have expressed my concerns on his talkpage. jps (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) The existence of this sandbox is prima facie evidence that the user who made it is not participating in this dispute resolution in good faith. jps (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) I also note that as of this timestamp, the moderator has only tagged my user page with the discretionary sanctions notification and has not tagged any other participant's page. [16] This seems to be further evidence that the moderator may be compromised in his position here. jps (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig discussion - take 2

Alright, I'm a volunteer here and I'm going to reopen this one and take it on board myself. I've collapsed all previous discussion and I will be sending a message to all that have contributed here to ensure that you're all still willing to participate. A bit about me - I've been doing sporadic dispute resolution on Wikipedia for about ten years, so I've done this sort of thing before. I don't have any formal ground rules, nor will I expect editors to comment in a structured way (my style is a little different to some others here, but that's just how I roll).

I do expect everyone here to stay on topic, be as concise as possible, and be polite to each other. I will generally guide the discussion amongst you, and make both suggestions and give directions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If each editor can confirm they would still like to participate in this discussion, we will proceed from there. The only rule I do have is that I ask the article is left in its current version, no matter how "wrong" it may seem. We will work on the article issues until they are resolved. Sound good. Let's get started with a comment from each editor first please. I'll check this page in 12 hours to see who has commented - for now, please just indicate willingness to proceed and no more. Thanks Steven Crossin 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in - still see a few editors I’m awaiting a response on. I’ll give things until tomorrow morning my time (about another 12 hours or so) and then I’ll start framing the discussion from here. Cheers. Steven Crossin 10:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, fantastic, that’s everyone I think. My timezone is a little odd (I’m in Australia but often operate on US eastern time). I’ll open up initial discussion in a few hours. Steven Crossin 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation from editors that you are willing to proceed

• I'd be happy to participate. Thanks for your help. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I accept. I would like to try this again. jps (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• No thanks. Good luck to you people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely, looking forward to moving this forward, thank you. Squatch347 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I am tentatively willing to proceed with another round of this. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's try, —PaleoNeonate – 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of discussion

OK, thank you to everyone for your patience. I've been reading through the article as well as some previous revisions. I'd like to start with a brief yardstick check - can each of you please tell me, in less than 100 words, which version of the article, in it's history, you feel is most "correct" - a starting point that we can work from (and provide a link to that revision). If you think there isn't a version that is a suitable starting point for progress, please state that, along with a very brief explanation of what you think needs to be addressed in the article going forward to get to a starting point.

I also note that numerous sources in the article are books - if links to these texts are known by editors and could be provided here, that would be of benefit as well. I appreciate that some of this discussion has happened before, but as I noted, I feel it's best we start off fresh and go from there. No need for the discussion below to be overwhelmingly structured, just keep it brief and for now, please try limit the back and forth - there will be time for that later. Cheers. Steven Crossin 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a decent starting point. I'm willing to go with the current version, but think there are lots of problems with the current version. Previous versions were worse. What we need to do is explain which ideas of Craig's have been noticed by others -- ideas that relate to science noticed by scientists, ideas that relate to philosophy noticed by philosophers, and ideas that relate to theologian noticed by theologians. jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I think that this revision from just prior to the current disputes isn't perfect, but it's probably the best starting point for this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I'm no expert on Craig, but based on my research during this dispute, my sense is it's substantially accurate with regard to him and the content of his work, which should be the focus of his biography. More recent revisions have sourcing and other improvements that should be kept, but the dispute has been too tumultuous to work from one of those revisions. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with GretLomborg that this is our best starting point. We should replace primary sources with high-quality independent sources, add some high-quality critical reaction, and trim out any stuff that can only be found in primary sources. By "high-quality" here I mean scholarly publications authored by experts and subjected to blind review. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• I support the same version as a good starting point [17]. With that said, there has been some good work done and I would include some of the diffs made later as improvements that clarify the article such as, [18] and [19] for starters. This version would be the best starting place because it will be far easier to include the later diffs we can gain consensus on based on a shared understanding of goals and policy rather than having to tease out those edits from a later version. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy

– New discussion.

Filed by Kyuko on 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kyuko (talk · contribs)
• Ke an (talk · contribs)
• Darius Musteikis (talk · contribs)
• Cullen328 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 18 December 2017, the topic of Adolfas Ramanauskas's purported involvement in the Holocaust was brought up in the article's talk page by 72.78.186.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mention of this controversy was added to the article by myself on 7 May 2019, attempting to use NPOV language, include numerous sources, and avoid taking a stance on the controversy. Users Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Darius Musteikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have repeatedly deleted any mention of the widely-reported controversies.

It should be mentioned that the former user has a history ([20]) of edit-warring on controversial topics regarding Lithuania.

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. 08:43, 27 June 2019
2. 15:56, 26 June 2019 "fake news, not supported by the facts"
3. 02:43, 3 June 2019
4. 10:14, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1941 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
5. 00:09, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1940 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
6. 22:37, 1 June 2019

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy

How do you think we can help?

It is hoped that neutral parties can determine whether or not the controversies surrounding the article's subject are worthy of mention.

Summary of dispute by Ke an

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The thing is that there are no facts or attestations about participation in Holocaust presented in all accusations or campaigns against Adolfas Ramanauskas 'nom de guerre' Vanagas. I don't think we should include sentences which are opinions or accusations because they are 'strong criticism'. In this way encyclopedia would mirror multiple "fake news" possible. There is a statement from Lithuanian Jewish community, which says: "The Lithuanian Jewish Community in response to a difference of opinion regarding a monument commemorating Adolfas “Vanagas” Ramanauskas unveiled in Chicago underlines our support for the struggle by the Lithuanian nation for an independent Lithuanian state. The LJC does not question making monuments to honor those who fought for Lithuanian freedom so long as the facts don’t testify to more controversial facts implicating such fighters as Holocaust perpetrators." https://www.lzb.lt/en/2019/05/08/ljc-statement-on-adolfas-ramanauskas/ The Israeli ambassador to the Baltic States Amir Maimon made a point of visiting the daughter of Adolfas Ramanauskas to express his respect for her father, Lithuanian freedom fighter against the Soviet occupation: "He emphasised that his state respects and values our struggle for freedom which was led by my father Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas. At the same time he noted that the attacks by two individuals were purely their own. The ambassador stressed that the goal of the visit is to get to know me and to strengthen the relations between our two nations," the famous partisan's daughter said. https://en.delfi.lt/archive/israel-sends-a-message-to-vanagaite-regarding-ramanauskas-vanagas.d?id=76657775. Israeli ambassador Amir Maimon also participated in the funeral of Adolfas Ramanauskas - Vanagas. So I don't see the point of emphasising and quoting 'strong criticism' and groundless accusations in the WP article about Lithuanian partisan Adolfas Ramanauskas. Participation in Holocaust is a serious charge and it must be substantiated by the facts. In my personal view Wikipedia should not serve as an amplifier for various arranged PR campaigns. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darius Musteikis

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

At this stage, I won’t be committing to take on this one - but a few notes for editors involved as well as other potential volunteers - I don’t see that there’s been a lot of talk page discussion on this matter and I’d like to see more. The other thing I’d point out is that it’s our role to state what reliable sources say, not infer their meaning or intent on their behalf. An example I often refer to is Al-Qaeda - where the article states something along the lines of “has been designated a terrorist group by UN, USA etc” rather than “Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group” - we are explicitly attributing the characterisation to those that made it. In this article, a similar approach could be taken if the sources that make that characterisation are widespread and significant - if they are limited in coverage I would caution such an inclusion, or at the very least, how it is worded- exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Lastly, this sentence I think is OK to include, though with some changes: “On May 4, 2019, a monument to Adolfas Ramanauskas was unveiled in Chicago, attracting strong criticism from Jewish and Russian organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the World Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Agency.[6][10][17][18][19][20][21]” - it is reasonably factual and accurate based on the sources that were referenced. However, the characterisation of the criticism as “strong” is inserted by us and should not be included. I would suggest changing the paragraph to some variant of “On May 4, 2019, a monument to Adolfas Ramanauskas was unveiled in Chicago, a decision which was criticised by some organisations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the World Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Agency.[6][10][17][18][19][20][21].”

I’ll leave it for another volunteer to take it from here. My reading of the sources regarding the characterisation of Ramanauskas and their purported activities has mixed thoughts in references provided and a mediator should attempt to get a view of the full picture before proceeding - some of the references give a slanted view of the subject from what I can see. Steven Crossin 10:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to reword the paragraph as suggested. I am of the opinion that the article should acknowledge the accusations without taking a stance on them. Kyuko (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

article is not a collection of false accusations, media campaigns or fake news - it contradicts the objectivity principle. Kyuko's suggested method of 'accusations without taking a stance on them' is not practised even in the biased media. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Mockingbird

– New discussion.

Filed by Rgr09 on 12:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Operation Mockingbird (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rgr09 (talk · contribs)
• Cll734t64232489 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is how to describe 'Operation Mockingbird'. There is ultimately only one, non-reliable source for the existence of this program, which the CIA supposedly began in the late 1940s or early 1950s. It is a very under-discussed issue in terms of reliable research publications; RS discussions are hard to come by. The article was built through references to works which never mention Operation Mockingbird once. The solution, reached through discussion on the talk page, was to label OM an 'alleged' operation. Unfortunately, this has led many editors with strong opinions and no research to back them up to simply delete the word 'alleged', leaving a very confused article indeed. User Cll734t64232489 is the latest to do so, and although I left a note Cll734t64232489's talk page and edit summaries asking for a discussion of the issue on the talk page, Cll734t64232489 has simply reverted all edits restoring the 'alleged' descriptor. Life is short, and I don't see the point in going back and forth in this way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted on user's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can persuade Cll734t64232489 to discuss the issue on the talk page, rather than just unilaterally insert his or her opinions in the article.

Summary of dispute by Cll734t64232489

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Operation Mockingbird discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@Rgr09:, from your comments you’ve stated there’s widespread agreement on the talk page to describe the operation as “alleged”. Can you please provide a link to this discussion where this clear consensus was established? I’ve taken a cursory glance through the talk page and cannot see such a discussion that has a clear consensus, so I assume it is in a talk page archive somewhere? Steven Crossin 13:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion of the use of alleged took place under the talk page section Alleged added in March 2017. Editors that took part in the discussion at that point included DrFleischman, Location, Richard-of-Earth, and later Darouet. The original rationale for using 'alleged' was the lack of RS for the entire article. This is discussed throughout the talk page. As far as I can know, there is no talk page archive on the article. Rgr09 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That indeed is the section I previously read through, and I’m not seeing any clear consensus agreed to there on the wording that should be in the article by any means - the discussion there is both very brief and very old. I also see some questions about the scope that the article should cover, and in fact the appropriate title for the page (with some conversations pointing to Project Mockingbird being the more appropriate title, with Operation Mockingbird covered in a subsection). One single source (an author called Davis?) makes me wonder whether it is an appropriate source for an articles content in its entirety. However, I must point out that all of this is moot - discussing issues at length on the talk page is a requirement before we normally would assist with a dispute and at this stage, there is no dispute. The matter hasn’t been discussed for a long time, nor has this latest change been discussed with the editor who made it, or any of the other contributors. I would suggest the scope of the article, as well as the term alleged be discussed in depth from here. I’ll close this thread out within 24 hours, but further discussion is really the next step here. Cheers. Steven Crossin 15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinged and so responding here. It would probably be worthwhile for us to come back to some of these issues on the talk page, since I believe the word "alleged" was a temporary solution that was meant to be replaced by a more nuanced discussion of the veracity and scope of Mockingbird. My recollection of the former dispute — this was last year I believe — is that very strong sources describe Mockingbird in detail, but that Rgr09 has also made strong arguments that these sources misinterpret Mockingbird's scope. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend that nuanced and more detailed discussion happens on the talk page. I would also recommend if anyone has access to a copy (digital preferred) of the book by Davis, that they provide a link to it or the relevant pages so other editors can see the original text for verification purposes. As an uninvolved editor it would be difficult to contribute to the discussion without access to the source texts. But that discussion for now belongs on the article talk page, we can assist down the road if need be. I’ll keep an eye on the talk page myself though - interested to see how this discussion goes. Steven Crossin 15:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Corporation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 198.27.150.168 on 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BD2412 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview BD2412 owns the page and will not allow even simple obvious edits and refuses to discuss most everything. There is a vast difference in education between us. I feel when I note the difference, s/he gets pissy but I am a phd, published scholar, etc. Last time this happened, BD2412 had me blocked for 6 months. I'm trying to avoid this happening again. Should I give up or is there a potential resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried on the kiwi irc for help and was banned for asking. How do you think we can help? I think you can allow editors to edit articles. Summary of dispute by BD2412 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article, Corporation, is a level-3 vital article that is one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, and is the product of the work of literally hundreds of contributors who have made thousands of edits to the page. A little over six months ago, this IP appeared on the talk page announcing that (in their view) pretty much everything in the article was wrong, and they intended to rewrite it line by line to conform with their views. This involved deletion by the IP of large blocks of well-sourced text, including deletion of the citations, based on their belief that the sources were wrong. This conduct is unacceptable, and was reverted. The IP then edit-warred and ignored repeated requests on the talk page (which is now entirely occupied with these discussions) to draft specific proposed language and obtain consensus for it on the article talk page. The IP had previously been blocked for a different offense, and therefore was then CheckUser blocked by User:Courcelles for six months. Lastly, the IPs self-aggrandizing assertion that there is a "vast difference in education between us" is incorrect. I happen to have a Juris Doctor and an LL.M., and am also a published scholar, including having published specifically in the area of the legal theory of corporations. I would prefer not to out myself here, but would be willing to prove my credentials to an admin willing to maintain confidentiality. bd2412 T 00:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Corporation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Based on what is written, bd2412 reverts every little edit I make because s/he doesn't like that my opinion is that the article is factually incorrect. And s/he's upset because I have posted a lot on the talk page, which is true. So what? It is also true that I deleted a block of text and tried to improve it. So what? bd2412 believes the article is great, so he has a problem with this, but is it really a problem? Regarding education, why am I the only editor citing peer reviewed articles? If you have an education, where are yours, bd2412? And I disgree; most of the sources for the article are not high quality. Look at the first few paragraphs, where there are not any good cites. But most importantly, the article is factually incorrect and unorganized. It should be broken into separate articles, one for corporation in general, one for the business corporation, one for non-profit, one for gov't corporation, and one for corporate sole, which is a non-profit. Putting them altogether makes little sense. Non-profits don't have stock markets. Next, explain the conceptions of the corporate form from concession theory to natural person, to nexus of contracts. Read what bd2412 wrote when I asked what the mainstream pov was related to corp. government and judge for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC) I don't know how to respond to someone who describes an article as "factually incorrect" while trying to delete reliably sourced content from the article. I don't really care how much any editor writes on an article talk page. It is the burden of that editor to obtain consensus to make contested changes. If this editor is able to obtain consensus for their proposed changes, I will gladly abide by that consensus. Thus far, they do not seem to have persuaded anyone but themselves of their correctness. bd2412 T 01:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) It is significant that both here and in one of their first edits on Corporation talk, user 198.27.150.168 makes the claim that the article is factually incorrect. The central theme seems to be that this editor knows the Truth and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I am reminded of the old Wikipedia maxim that "defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as 'verifiability, not truth'". Although not a current Wikipedia policy, the idea remains in the Verifiability policy that "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". The objecting editor, who so far has restricted their edits in main space to the article on Corporations and its Talk page, should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy. As an aside, I note their refusal to engage in even the minor politeness of signing their edits on this page or on talk pages. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Great Expectations#Bold_for_character_names

– New discussion.

Filed by Chaosdruid on 08:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Great Expectations#Bold for character names (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chaosdruid (talk · contribs)
• Prairieplant (talk · contribs)
• Clarityfiend (talk · contribs)
• Rwood128 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

List of characters had character's name in boldface

I deboldened as per MOS:BOLDFACE

Reverted, several times, with other editors claiming it looks better, so "why not just leave it" and "there are others" and "are you going to fix all of them then?"

I tried to explain MOS on the talk page, but to no avail

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Offered MOS links Tried to explain why manual of style is to be at least loosly adhered to Discussed changing boldened names into headers for each character Offered Bullet points as compromise

How do you think we can help?

Help them to understand MOS and how we should apply it Show them why all Wikipedia editors should follow MOS as much as possible

Summary of dispute by Prairieplant

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Clarityfiend

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rwood128

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Great Expectations#Bold_for_character_names discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.